3 ms·
"And you still maintain encapsulation, too, because the returned function may access stuff that was only available inside the containing closure (where it was d
by omouse 18y ago
"And you still maintain encapsulation, too, because the returned function may access stuff that was only available inside the containing closure (where it was dispatched)."
That only works if your functions can maintain state and if they can, well they're basically objects aren't they...
- silentbicycle 18y agoWell, strictly speaking, they're closures. There's a lot of overlap between objects and closures, though using one or the other will frame the problem in a slightly different way. See also: http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/m...
- dangrover 18y agoThat's my point. You don't need to have a separate special construct for objects, or any kind of support for them, when you have first-class functions. As for state information, you could just put a 'let' inside there with your variables, and call mutators on them from inside the "object"'s functions. Hmm, I think all these Scheme-centric classes I've taken have warped my mind. I should seek therapy.
- apgwoz 18y ago> when you have first-class functions. This isn't enough without the ability to close over the lexical environment. See Python pre 3.0, without the dictionary/list "hacks".